The DOI matches its Crossref record; 95 of the 95 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Choosing the right surgical technique for deep endometriosis: shaving, disc excision, or bowel resection?
Open accessAbstract
Deep endometriosis (DE) remains the most difficult endometriotic entity to treat. Medical treatment for DE can reduce symptoms but does not cure the disease, and surgical removal of the lesion is required when lesions are symptomatic, impairing bowel, urinary, sexual, and reproductive functions. Although several surgical techniques such as laparoscopic bowel resection, disc excision, and rectal shaving have been described, there is no consensus regarding the choice of technique or the timing of surgery. Our review of publications reporting results and complications of surgery for rectovaginal DE reveals a relatively higher complication rate after bowel resection compared with shaving and disc excision, especially for rectovaginal fistulas, anastomotic leakage, delayed hemorrhage, and long-term bladder catheterization. Data show that shaving is feasible even in advanced disease. The risk of immediate complications after shaving and disc excision is probably lower than after colorectal resection, allowing for better functional outcomes. The presumed higher risk of recurrence related to shaving has not been demonstrated. For these reasons, surgeons should consider rectal shaving as a first-line surgical treatment of rectovaginal DE, regardless of nodule size or association with other digestive localizations. When the result of rectal shaving is unsatisfactory (rare cases), disc excision may be performed either exclusively by laparoscopy or by using transanal staplers. Segmental resection may ultimately be reserved for advanced lesions responsible for major stenosis or for several cases of multiple nodules infiltrating the rectosigmoid junction or sigmoid colon.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“while the risk of recurrence is logically a time-dependent variable [2].”
From Post-operative complications and recurrence rate after treatment of bowel endometriosis: Comparison of three techniques (2019) · cites this paper as [2]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“There are, however, several studies and reviews suggesting that discoid resection techniques and especially partial thickness discoid resection (ie rectal shaving) may confer lower postsurgical complication rates compared to segmental resection.”
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“There is, so far, no real consensus on how to optimally treat colorectal endometriosis surgically, since the application of the main three techniques, namely, segmental colorectal resection, full thickness discoid resection (FTDR) and so‐called shaving, depends on various factors which may differ from unit to unit and surgeon to surgeon.”
In the citing paper
“Avoiding repeat surgery in case of recurrence of pain is even more important, as it is well known that this is often the source of severe complications [123].”
From Endometriosis and Medical Therapy: From Progestogens to Progesterone Resistance to GnRH Antagonists: A Review (2021) · cites this paper as [123]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Giudice, L. C., & Kao, L. C. (2004) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(04)17403-5 · Cited by 3,166
Etiology and management of fecal incontinence
Jorge, M. J. N., & Wexner, S. D. (1993) · Diseases of the Colon & Rectum · doi:10.1007/bf02050307 · Cited by 2,966
Nisolle, M., & Donnez, J. (1997) · Fertility and Sterility · doi:10.1016/s0015-0282(97)00191-x · Cited by 1,279
Matthiessen, P., Hallböök, O., Rutegård, J., Simert, G., & Sjödahl, R. (2007) · Annals of Surgery · doi:10.1097/sla.0b013e3180603024 · Cited by 1,123
Low Anterior Resection Syndrome Score
Emmertsen, K. J., & Laurberg, S. (2012) · Annals of Surgery · doi:10.1097/sla.0b013e31824f1c21 · Cited by 1,090
Deep endometriosis infiltrating the recto-sigmoid: critical factors to consider before management
Abrao, M. S., Petraglia, F., Falcone, T., Keckstein, J., Osuga, Y., & Chapron, C. (2015) · Human Reproduction Update · doi:10.1093/humupd/dmv003 · Cited by 398
Surgical treatment of deeply infiltrating endometriosis with colorectal involvement
Meuleman, C., Tomassetti, C., D'Hoore, A., Van Cleynenbreugel, B., Penninckx, F., Vergote, I., & D'Hooghe, T. (2011) · Human Reproduction Update · doi:10.1093/humupd/dmq057 · Cited by 338
Redwine, D. B., & Wright, J. T. (2001) · Fertility and Sterility · doi:10.1016/s0015-0282(01)01913-6 · Cited by 279
Quality of life after laparoscopic colorectal resection for endometriosis
Dubernard, G., Piketty, M., Rouzier, R., Houry, S., Bazot, M., & Darai, E. (2006) · Human Reproduction · doi:10.1093/humrep/dei491 · Cited by 272
Donnez, J., & Squifflet, J. (2010) · Human Reproduction · doi:10.1093/humrep/deq135 · Cited by 265
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Items 101–103 of 103
Etrusco, A., Chiantera, V., Serra, P., Stabile, G., Margioula-Siarkou, C., Della Corte, L., Giampaolino, P., Török, P., Baldini, G. M., Ghezzi, F., et al. (2024) · Best Practice & Research Clinical Obstetrics & Gynaecology · doi:10.1016/j.bpobgyn.2024.102524 · Cited by 8
Flammang, I., Eichelmann, A.-K., Schäfer, S., Ramspott, J. P., Bungert, A., Pascher, A., & Merten, J. (2026) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-026-47171-9 · Cited by 1
Nowak, K., Dąbrowska, A., Mrugała, M., & Milnerowicz-Nabzdyk, E. (2026) · Journal of Clinical Medicine · doi:10.3390/jcm15072630 · Cited by 1
“In contrast, Donnez and Roman [18] reported fistulas across all three bowel resection techniques in a large meta-analysis, with rates of 3.9% for segmental resection, 3.6% for discoid excision, and 1.3% for shaving procedures.”
Influential
Metadata
- Authors
- Donnez, O., & Roman, H.
- Affiliations
- UCLouvain (BE)
- Hôpital Charles-Nicolle (FR)
- Corresponding author
- Donnez, Olivier
- Venue
- Fertility and Sterility
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2017-12
- Volume
- 108
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 931-942
- ISSN
- 0015-0282 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2773190186
- Semantic Scholar
- f0630c7306ab8481cc40c722d27fa2e8adc40cc0
- Cited by
- 252
- References
- 95
- Citations by year
- 2026: 16 · 2025: 21 · 2024: 31 · 2023: 25 · 2022: 28 · 2021: 38 · 2020: 55 · 2019: 25 · 2018: 12 · 2017: 1
- FWCI
- 4.15
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Fertility and Sterility (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- HAL (submittedVersion)
- Digital Access to Libraries (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Reproductive Medicine › Endometriosis Research and Treatment
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Obstetrics and Gynecology › Gynecological conditions and treatments
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Obstetrics and Gynecology › Endometrial and Cervical Cancer Treatments
- Keywords
- deep infiltrating endometriosis, rectovaginal endometriosis, rectal shaving, disc excision, bowel resection, laparoscopic surgery, postoperative complications, rectovaginal fistula, anastomotic leakage, endometriosis recurrence, timing of surgery, segmentectomy
- MeSH terms
- Clinical Decision-Making, Endometriosis, Female, Humans, Male, Laparoscopy, Postoperative Complications, Rectal Diseases, Risk Factors, Digestive System Surgical Procedures, Gynecologic Surgical Procedures, Vaginal Diseases, Treatment Outcome, Patient Selection
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
